Don Satz:

>Since Ian and others favor an exact definition, where do they locate it?

Being serious for a brief moment - something that I'm finding increasingly
difficult in this thread - what I actually favour is the pursuit of an
exact definition. If I ever found one that did the job perfectly, I'm not
sure how I'd feel about it. People keep talking about "my" definition but I
say again that I have never, never offered one. Only thoughts as to what
such a definition should and should not do.

>That's the way it is now - where's the chaos and confusion? Who's confused?
>I'm not, Dave isn't, David Stewart isn't,

I'm delighted to hear it

>and Ian isn't.

You want to place a bet on that?

>I keep reading about this chaos but see no signs of it.

There was a tiny bit of irony inserted into my last post. Perhaps I should
have marked parts of it with the <Fe> and </Fe> tags to make that clearer
(chemists and HTML authors should be able to figure that out, if they
haven't met it before).

>I like kicking ideas around also.  But, how long I'm willing to engage
>in that process depends upon my interest in the subject and my perception
>of the merit of competing ideas.

I merely observe that you're still in there kicking!

Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]